Torture used at Guantanamo Bay: Susan J. Crawford

The following article first appeared in today’s edition of Crikey, and is republished on Webdiary with the kind permission of the author, Jeff Sparrow, and Crikey.

The Humpty Dumpty gang should take their great fall over Guantanamo
by Jeff Sparrow, editor of Overland

Yesterday, the Washington Post gave Bob Woodward the front page for a story in which Susan J Crawford, the convening authority for Bush’s military commissions acknowledged the use of torture at Guantanamo Bay.

"We tortured [Mohammed al-]Qahtani," she said.

She was referring to the treatment of a Saudi man who was kept nude in sustained isolation, deprived of sleep and exposed to cold, until his condition became "life threatening".

As scoops go, this is hardly Watergate. The blogger Digby points out that Al-Qahtani's interrogation logs were published in Time three years ago, while Dick Cheney, CIA Director Michael Hayden and George W. Bush himself have all acknowledged the use of waterboarding, a favoured torture technique of the Khmer Rouge.

No, the significance of Woodward’s article lies almost solely in Crawford’s use of the T word.

Throughout the Bush years, politicians and the media, both in Australia and abroad, have been prepared to play brazen Alice in Wonderland games with definitions. You’ll recall that Humpty Dumpty, a fellow who looks and sounds very much like Dick Cheney, scornfully explained to Alice: "When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less."

That’s been the modus operandi of the Bush gang. You can admit to the use of stress positions, sleep deprivation, sexual humiliation and the rest of it – brutalities long familiar from the dungeons of the most sinister regimes in the world – so long as you barefacedly announce, as Bush did in 2006: "The United States does not torture. It's against our laws, and it's against our values."

Similarly, despite the Downing Street memo, Bush and Blair and Howard can, by defining "truth" in the narrowest possible fashion, insist that they never actually lied their way into Iraq. The world’s legal experts can state, in the clearest possible terms, that the invasion violated international law, yet because the good and the great rely on their own definition of legality, we see the war’s architects not in a dock but in grotesque ceremonies where they pin medals of freedom on each other.

Still, the Woodward story represents just one of many signs that a change is now afoot. For instance, if the T word constituted one of the great taboos of the Bush era, the I word was another. The rule for politicians and journalists was strict: one could not, despite all the evidence to the contrary, acknowledge that President Bush was a dribbling idiot. No, despite the gaffes, the bizarre press conferences and the weird facial contortions, the pundits all had to pretend that the man leading the free world was not a farting frat boy but rather a great reader, a historian and a thinker.

These days, though, everyone seems to be shouting that the Emperor has no brain. A few days ago, the Telegraph ran a column documenting the best-known Bushisms, a piece significant because it was authored not by Michael Moore or John Pilger but by Boris Johnson, London’s ferociously right-wing Mayor.

Of course, the real question is whether this new willingness to call things by their right names will translate into action. Take torture, for instance. A week ago, Charles "Chuckie" Taylor Jr, the son of former Liberian President Charles Taylor, received a sentence of 97 years gaol for torturing his opponents.

"It is hard to conceive of any more serious offenses against the dignity and the lives of human beings," U.S. District Judge Cecilia M. Altonaga Altonaga said.

"The international community condemns torture."

Matthew Friedrich from the U.S. Justice Department's criminal division released an equally stern statement. "Our message to human rights violators, no matter where they are, remains the same,’ he said.

"We will use the full reach of U.S. law ... to hold you accountable for your crimes."

One couldn’t agree more. So now that we have an admission that what took place in Guantanamo constituted torture, when do the prosecutions begin? The truth has long been available to anyone who wanted to see it. It’s well past time for the Humpty Dumpty gang to take their great fall.

[ category:

]

Catching up with Jed Babbin

Submitted by Justin Obodie on January 19, 2009 - 9:03am.

Four years ago, in January 2005, I replied to an article in (on-line) The American Spectator by Jed Babbin (so you can't say I only read lefty rags). It was called "We Ugly Americans" and defended the interrogation techniques of the US that many claimed to amount to torture.

This was my letter:

What is your definition of torture?
How would you describe the current interrogation methods used by the American military?
How do you know the people captured in Fallujah are terrorists? Were they not locals trying to resist American occupation? And would you not do the same if a foreign force invaded America?
Does the torture or cohesive interrogation of terrorists or anyone else actually provide useful information and if so what empirical proof do you have that it does?
If yes to the above question what methods of torture are most effective to gather useful information?
What qualifications do you have regarding the interrogation of prisoners?
What were the questions that were ill-informed, legally wrong, and offensive when asked by the BBC moderator and what were your answers; or better still could you direct me to the transcript re the above interview?
How many terrorists are currently held by the USA and how many have been charged with actual crimes?
If a member of your family was accused by a third party as being a terrorist and they were picked up and held in detention, sexually humiliated and photographed would you think that it was OK?
How do we insure that the people we are interrogating are actually terrorists and not just named by other people who have been tortured into giving false information to avoid further interrogation?
Should we not give more thought about this whole interrogation thing and think about less violent ways of extracting the correct information from people?
Are there any type of drugs that could make people tell the truth?
If not could these types of drugs be developed?

This was Jeb Babbin's reply:

Mr. Obodie: I know, from many sources, that our interrogation methods are legal, and my definition of torture is codified in U.S. law and the Geneva Conventions (with reference to the international Convention Against Torture, but not Protocol 1 which the U.S. has never signed). We aren't torturing prisoners, and those who abuse prisoners are being punished. Torture -- as I have written and said many times on radio and television -- is abhorrent and in fact doesn't work. People will say anything to end the pain, and the information you can extract with torture is terribly unreliable. Just what right do you have to equate what we are doing -- in any way, shape, manner or form -- to torture? Why don't you - and so many like you - take any time to publicly condemn the horrific actions of the terrorists? It is, I'm sure, because you fear them and don't fear us. That, in case you missed it, proves my point.
Your information and assumptions are entirely uninformed. And please don't tell me that the terrorists we are taking in Fallujah and elsewhere are just innocent bystanders. They aren't resisting an occupation, they're fighting for the power to assert their illegitimate power over others. Many thanks for your note.

Fast forward to January 2009. In view of the fact that the US does torture I thought I'd catch up with Jeb and sent him the following e-mail:

Hi Jed
Hope life is treating you well and I trust the new year will be kind to you and loved ones.
Below is a reply you make to me some years ago at Spectator.org on 1.19.2005. I'll recopy it here just to refresh your memory, then add my comments below:
Well Jeb, I would suggest, old chap, it was your information and assumptions that were entirely uniformed in view of the facts. It would appear your "many sources" where totally unreliable, or you were lying. So which was it?
Cheers JO

This was Jed's reply:

Neither, you fool. Your comments, like those of so many others, evidence a complete ignorance of the law and of the facts.

My reply to that was:

Sadly Jeb I would expect such a rely from a spoilt child, or from one of the Fox News clowns.
It would appear that your reality is somewhat contaminated.
Won't waste our time further.
Yours JO
PS. I may well be a fool but never a stooge.

About Jed Babbin:

Before joining Human Events, Mr. Babbin was a contributing editor for The American Spectator and a columnist for RealClearPolitics.com and other publications. He appears frequently on television as a military and foreign affairs analyst, including on The O'Reilly Factor, FOX & Friends, and Kudlow and Co. He often serves as guest-host for some of the nation’s most popular radio hosts, including Laura Ingraham, Mark Levin, Bill Bennett, and Michael Reagan.

Mr. Babbin was an Air Force officer and later served as a deputy undersecretary of defense in President George H.W. Bush’s administration.

With talent like Jed no wonder the Yanks are up to their ears in shit.

Dancing with the stars...

Submitted by Fiona Reynolds on January 16, 2009 - 1:29pm.

Richard, the thought of you and Eliot Ramsey doing a pas-de-deux has made my day. Which role do you want?

Eliot, I do hope you are being careful with your strawmen – it is bushfire season after all, and it would be shocking if your feathers were to be singed.

The Wizard of Oz

Submitted by Eliot Ramsey on January 16, 2009 - 1:47pm.

Poor old Mumdouh. Now he's just a straw man...

Fiona: Better than being a Tin Man, eh, Eliot?

Guantanamo confession KO's Bush nontorture claims- Age editorial

Submitted by Richard Tonkin on January 17, 2009 - 4:14am.

Bet you won't find anything like this in a News Ltd paper:

The key point, whether or not the Australian government of the day correctly fulfilled its obligations to protect its citizens abroad, is again prominent in the light of the judge's admission. Were the basic rights of each man disregarded in favour of compliance with the US? Were enough questions asked at the time? Certainly, any assurances given and received that torture was not an option are now null and void.

In other words, claims that Hicks and Habib weren't tortured are null and void.

I can't wait to see the offiicial Australian reation to Crawford's revelations. Especially the South Australian reaction. Mind you, the Crawford story only made p16 in Adelaide, so I'm not holding my breath on the local front.

A convenient untruth

Submitted by Eliot Ramsey on January 16, 2009 - 9:35am.

Richard Tonkin: "Eliot, here's your opinion of Habib from November 26, 2008 - 1:52pm.: "He gets excited. And confused about facts. That's a matter of public record, actually."

Richard Tonkin: "Just in case you were thinking, Eliot, of using Habib's credibility levels as a foil for the current torture confession, let's look at the words of theGuantanamo Authority Convenor"

So, I take it Mumdouh Habib is verging on being dropped as a "peace" activist hero, is he?

On the grounds that his credibility problems have now suddenly become inconvenient (as opposed to being merely the subject of Murdoch slanders)?

No more standing ovations at the North Sydney Peace Group for poor old Mumdouh, hey?

How the mighty have fallen.

Anyway, Mumdouh's "credibility" gap extends only to his account of the lack of good character amongst his fellow Gitmo inmates? Is that right?

When he's pointing out the bleeding obvious about the Gitmo alumni, he's not credible? Okay.

What about Mumdouh's stories about life behind the razor wire, then? Is that still alright?

I just want to know, in what context is Mumdouh's credibility problem is "okay"? And in which is it a "problem"?

Also, David Hicks?

Does he have any "credibility" problems? Or is his word still gospel? For the moment? In certain contexts? To be determined on a case by case basis?

Sorry, Eliot

Submitted by Richard Tonkin on January 16, 2009 - 11:31am.

Eliot, you're the only one who's been attempting to build up a discredible profile of Habib in suitable circumstances. Perhaps you didn't pick up my intended facetiousness when I on that prior thread that I'd take your word for it? Sorry.

Our conversations follow patterns that often easy to determine. I've tried my best to help you say what you think of Habib. I just wish you'd make up your mind.

Now, what about an opinion on the topic of this thread? Are you going to give one, or just attempt to continue this dance? Perhaps if you don't want to even pretend to be on-topic you might leave a bit of room for those who would like to discuss the subject. Or is that what you're trying to nobble?

Now we believe him, now we don't

Submitted by Eliot Ramsey on January 16, 2009 - 12:02pm.

Richard Tonkin: "Eliot, you're the only one who's been attempting to build up a discredible profile of Habib in suitable circumstances."

Really? Only me?

Justice Peter McClellan today ruled in favour of the media company, finding Mr Habib was "prone to exaggerate", "evasive" and had made claims about mistreatment in Pakistan and Egypt which could not be sustained.

He's not my hero, Richard. I never gave him a standing ovation.

Another GAMFU

Submitted by Marilyn Shepherd on January 16, 2009 - 3:25am.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7829780.stm

Eliot, how about this? You don't give a stuff about Mamdouh Habib or anything he says.

Your point, Eliot?

Submitted by Marilyn Shepherd on January 15, 2009 - 4:40pm.

Do you have one? The people from Gitmo whom we have been asked to accept have all never been charged with anything at all.

And Susan Crawford was the person who dealt with Michael Mori to have David Hicks sent home to be illegally jailed.

Hard act to follow

Submitted by Eliot Ramsey on January 15, 2009 - 4:59pm.

So, what do you think of Mamdouh Habib's comments regarding the proposal we accept other Gitmo alumni. Doesn't seem too keen, does he? Is that because he's actually met a few of them?

Makes about as much sense as putting Mercedes Corby on the cover of Ralph, if you ask me.

Eliot's Habib conundrums

Submitted by Richard Tonkin on January 15, 2009 - 10:42pm.

Eliot, here's your opinion of Habib from November 26, 2008 - 1:52pm.: "He gets excited. And confused about facts. That's a matter of public record, actually."

I've noticed your excited posting on this thread, and in your zeal to find an implement for your campaign on a topic with little relevance to the piece, you appear to have become confused about the fact that you have already demonstrated a disbelief in the credibility of Habib's claims.

You've shot yourself in that foot already, Sundance., and yet you're trying to kick the Greens in the butt with it.

Rarely does one meet an individual with such a high pain threshold.

Anticipating a pas-de-deux

Submitted by Richard Tonkin on January 16, 2009 - 1:11am.

Just in case you were thinking, Eliot, of using Habib's credibility levels as a foil for the current torture confession, let's look at the words of the Guantanamo Authority Convenor:

Judge Susan Crawford, a top Bush Administration official who decided whether to bring detainees to trial, has said the "aggressive interrogation techniques" used against Saudi Arabian detainee Mohammed al-Qahtani constituted torture.
Qahtani was stripped naked, sleep deprived, isolated for long periods and exposed to the cold in Guantanamo Bay for more than 50 days, leaving him in in a "life-threatening condition" Judge Crawford told The Washington Post.
While the techniques were authorised, she said, it was torture because it was applied relentlessly and endangered the health of Qahtani, who allegedly planned to participate in the September 11 attacks.

Although what Habib says supports Ms Crawford's statement, her words can well and truly stand alone.

It's not easy being Green

Submitted by Eliot Ramsey on January 15, 2009 - 3:27pm.

"The Greens have called for the Federal Government to reconsider allowing Guantanamo Bay prisoners to settle in Australia."

- ABC News

"It is a big risk to the country to bring (these) people here."

- Mamdouh Habib

Tells you everything you need to know about the Greens, really.

Crack

Submitted by Richard Tonkin on January 15, 2009 - 2:50pm.

Wow!

I was suprised enough a few weeks back to hear Obama say that Guantanamo would be shut down to show the world that "we don't torture," but this admission from Susan Crawford, on the eve of the Presidential change-over, is staggerring in its weight.

Had it occurred after the 20th it would be more understandable as a way of coming into the fold of the new Administration, but for Crawford to time such a statement thus is to deliver Bush and Cheney a kick in the teeth as they try to sidestep out the back door.

I wonder how long it will take, following this crack in the dam, before the flood begins?

Going home

Submitted by Eliot Ramsey on January 15, 2009 - 4:40pm.

Don't be too disappointed if President Obama finds Gitmo harder to close down that he expected.

First of all, there are few political movements benefitting from leadership as sage as the Greens (ha ha) - and certainly none in charge of an actual country.

So, nobody will actually want 'their' Gitmo inmates back.

Webdiary - Founded and Inspired by Margo Kingston

Navigation

Issue Archives